Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	homage_n	king_n	scotland_n	5,122	5	9.5324	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65595	A specimen of some errors and defects in the history of the reformation of the Church of England, wrote by Gilbert Burnet ... by Anthony Harmer.	Wharton, Henry, 1664-1695.	1693 (1693)	Wing W1569; ESTC R20365	97,995	210

not left to the pleasure of the Abbot or Religious House to whom the Church belonged But the Bishops endowed the Vicarages with what proportion of Tithes and Emoluments they thought fit in many places reserved to the Vicar one half of all manner of Tithes and the whole Fees of all Sacraments Sacramentals c. in most places reserved to them not some little part of but all the Vicarage-tithes and in other places appointed to them an annual pension of Money In succeeding times when the first Endowments appeared too slender they encreased them at their pleasure Of all which our ancient Registers and Records give abundant testimony This was the case of all Vicarages As for those impropriated Livings which have now no settled Endowment and are therefore called not Vicarages but perpetual or sometimes arbitrary Curacies they are such as belonged formerly to those Orders who could serve the oure of them in their own persons as the Canons Regular of the Order of St. Austin which being afterwards devolved into the hands of Laymen they hired poor Curates to serve them at the cheapest rate they could and still continue to doe so Pag. 25. lin 28. Ridley elect of Rochester designed for that See by King Henry but not consecrated till September this Year 1547. If King Henry designed Ridley to be Bishop of Rochester he could not do it by any actual Nomination but only by Prophetical foresight of Longland's Death and Holbeach's Translation For the King died 1547 Ianuary 28th Longland of Lincoln died 1547. May 7th Holbeach of Rochester was elected to Lincoln 9th August So that until August there was no room for Ridley at Rochester Pag. 30. lin 17. The Form of bidding Prayer was used in the times of Popery as will appear by the Form of bidding the Beads in King Henry the 7th's time which will be found in the Collection The Form published by the Historian out of the Festival Printed Anno 1509. seemeth by the length of it and comparing it with another undoubtedly true Form to have been rather a Paraphrase or Exposition of the Form of bidding Beads I have therefore presented to the Reader a much shorter and ancienter Form taken out of an old written Copy Pag. 32. lin 13. Tonstall searching the Registers of his See found many Writings of great consequence to clear the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England The most remarkable of these was the Homage King William of Scotland made to Henry the Second by which he granted that all the Nobles of his Realm should be his Subjects and do Homage to him and that all the Bishops of Scotland should be under the Archbishop of York It was said that the Monks in those days who generally kept the Records were so accustomed to the forging of Stories and Writings that little Credit was to be given to such Records as lay in their keeping But having so faithfully acknowledged what was alledged against the Freedom of Scotland I may be allowed to set down a Proof on the other side for my Native Countrey copied from the Original Writing yet extant under the Hands and Seals of many of the Nobility and Gentry of that Kingdom It is a Letter to the Pope c. The ancient and allowed Laws of History exclude Partiality yet this Historian's great Concern for the Honour of his Countrey cannot well be called by any other name which hath induced him to publish and Instrument of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland not at all relating to the History of our English Reformation If he thinketh that this Liberty ought to be allowed to him in recompence of the great Obligation he hath laid upon the English Nation for having so faithfully acknowledged what was alledged against the Freedom of Scotland we pretend that all Persons conversant in the History of our Nation did before this very well know all these Allegations and ten times as many of no less weight and that either he did not perfectly understand the Controversie or hath not so faithfully represented the Arguments of our side For King William did not herein make any new Grant to King Henry but only confirmed and acknowledged the ancient Dependence and Subjection of Scotland to England nor did he then first subject the Bishops of Scotland to the Archbishop of York but engaged that hereafter they should be subject to him as of right they ought to be and had wont to be in the time of the former Kings of England The Bishops of Scotland had been all along subject to the Archbishops of York but having about Eleven years before this obtained an Exemption of this Jurisdiction by a Bull of Pope Alexander the King of Scotland now undertook that they should not claim the benefit of that Exemption but be subject to the Church of England as formerly and the Bishops of Scotland also then present concurred with the King and promised for themselves although within a short time after they broke their Faith and procured a new and fuller Exemption from the Pope which Dempster placeth in the Year 1178. The Charter of King William before mentioned was made in 1175. But after all the Bishoprick of Galloway continued to be subject unto the Archbishop of York until towards the end of the Fifteenth Century when it was by the Pope taken from York and subjected to Glasgow then newly erected into an Archbishoprick Now whereas the Historian would invalidate the Authority of this Charter insinuating that it may justly be suspected to have been forged by the Monks because taken out of their Records and coming out of their Custody he may please to know that this very Charter may be found entire in the Printed History of Roger de Hoveden who was no Monk but a a Secular Clergy-man a Domestick of this King Henry attending him in all his Expeditions As for the pretence of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland in their Letter written to the Pope Anno 1320. and published by the Historian it is not to be wondered if their minds being elated with unusual Success against our unfortunate King Edward II. they enlarged their Pretences and affected an independency from the Crown of England which their Forefathers never pretended to nor had themselves at any other time dared to arrogate All the principal Nobility and Gentry of Scotland had in the Year 1291. made as ample and authentick an Instrument of the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England as could be conceived before Edward had either Conquered or invaded their Countrey which Instrument Tonstall taketh notice of in his Memorial and this was indeed the most remarkable of all the Testimonies produced by Tonstall at least accounted by King Edward to be of so great moment that he sent a Copy of it under the Great Seal to every noted Abbey and Collegiate Church in England that it might be safely preserved and inserted into their several Annals It may be seen at length in the Printed History

of Matthew Westminster Therein it may be observed that it was subscribed by some of those very Noblemen of Scotland who subscribed the Letter to the Pope published by the Historian who may be thought therein to have done no great Honour to his Countrey by publishing such an Authentick Testimony of the Infidelity of it Pag. 47 48 49. When the Parliament was divided into two Houses then the Clergy made likewise a Body of their own and sate in Convocation which was the third Estate Whether ever the Clergy were a part of the House of Commons is a just doubt Upon the whole matter it is not certain what was the Power or Right of these Proctors of the inferior Clergy in former times Some are of opinion that they were only Assistants to the Bishops but had no voice in either House of Parliament But as the Clause Praemonentes in the Writ seems to make them a part of the Parliament so these Petitions suppose that they sate in the House of Commons anciently In a matter so perplexed and dark I will presume to offer a Conjecture which will not appear perhaps improbable In the 129th Page of the former Part I gave the Reasons that made me think the lower House of Convocation consisted at first only of the Proctors of the Clergy It is generally believed that the whole Parliament sate together in one House before Edward the Third's time and then the inferiour Clergy were a a part of that without question But when the Lords and Commons sate apart the Clergy likewise sate in two Houses So that it seems to me most probable that the Proctors of the Clergy were both in England and Ireland the lower House of Convocation I will not here enter into an exact Enquiry concerning the ancient Constitution of Parliaments in England A question which hath already exercised so many Learned Pens cannot be dispatched in few words I will only observe that the Historian hath succeeded very ill in his Conjectures In the first place it is a wide mistake to affirm that after the Division of the Houses and perfect Settlement of the Constitution of Parliament the Convocation was the third Estate For it was anciently accounted and was really the first Estate Then his Conjecture concerning the ancient Seat of the Proctors of the Clergy in Parliament deduced with so much Labour so many previous and concomitant Observations is unhappily founded upon two false Suppositions The first is That formerly the lower House of Convocation consisted only of the Proctors of the Clergy The contrary of this was fully proved in the preceding Papers wherein it was shewn that Deans also and Archdeacons did sit in the lower House of Convocation The second false Supposition is that until Edward the Third's time the whole Parliament sate together in one House and consequently that the several Estates of Parliament were then alike summoned by the Kings Writ Now the contrary of this appears from an ancient Remonstrance of the Clergy in Convocation in the Year 1314. found in an Authentick Register the summ and occasion of which I will represent in few words The King had issued out a Writ to Walter Archbishop of Canterbury Die 27. Martii Anno Regni Septimo in this Form Vobis mandamus quatenus sitis in propriâ personâ vestrâ apud Westmonasterium in crastino Ascensionis Domini proximo futuro coram fidelibus nostris ad hoc deputandis ad tractandum cum eisdem fidelibus nostris super competenti auxilio à Clero Provinciae vestrae Cant. nobis impendendo pro utilitate Reipublicae c. prout in proximo Parliamento apud Westmonasterium habito tam per Clerum quàm per Communitatem regni nostri extitit concordatum prout per praedictos fideles nostros eritis requisiti Et ad eundem diem venire faciatis coram dictis fidelibus nostris Suffraganeos vestros Decanos Abbates c. Clerum cujusque Diocesis ejusdem Provinciae per duos Procuratores sufficientes ad tractandum consentiendum unà Vobiscum his quae in praemissis ibidem contigerit ordinari In obedience to this Writ which is Entituled Litera de Convocatione Cleri apud Westm. the Archbishop sent a Mandate to his Suffragans c. in such Form as repeating at length the Kings Writ he subjoyned Quocirca vobis ten●re praesentium injungimus mandamus quatenus vos dictis die loco intersitis c. From hence it appears that the Clergy were even before this called immediately to Convocation by the Archbishops Writ and that in the preceding Parliament the Clergy and Communitas Regni sate apart But this is not all When the Clergy met upon this Mandate of the Archbishop they presented to him a Remonstrance excepting against the form of the King's Summons and his Mandate Contra formam hujusmodi citationis Clerus Cant. Provinciae proposuit rationes subscriptas die Lunae in crastino S. Dunstani apud Westm. c. Imprimis That whereas the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury had not been wont nor ought to be called by the King's Authority This Mandate of the Archbishop proceeded in virtue of the King's command as appeared by the Form thereof which had never before been done That if this Precedent were allowed without any Contradiction the King might send out hereafter like Writs to the great prejudice of the Church and Clergy That the King might by the same reason summon them to meet at some place out of the Province which would be prejudicial to the Clergy of the Province and had been hitherto without Example That they were herein summoned to meet at Westminster locum videlicet exemptum auctoritate Ordinarii ad quem Clerus Cant. Provinciae ante haec tempora vocari nullatenus consuevisset That whereas Laymen had nothing to doe to intermeddle with Ecclesiastical causes and persons this Writ summoned them to appear coram dilectis fidelibus Domini nostri Regis nullâ authoritate ecclesiasticâ fulsitis contrary to the usage of all former times For these and many other Reasons they desired that this Writ should be revoked and themselves dismissed and be summoned again in the usual and legal form Accordingly they were dismissed on the Wednesday following and were summoned by a new Mandate of the Archbishop dated Iune 6. in such Form as was wont to be heretofore used to meet at the Church of St. Pauls London on the 8th of Iuly Which Form mutatis mutandis agreeth exactly with the Form used immediately before the Reformation and published by the Historian among the Memorials of the first Part. On the first day of December the same year the King summoned another Parliament to meet at Westminster in the Octaves of Hilary and directed a Writ to the Archbishop to summon the Clergy to meet dictis die loco which the Archbishop did When the Clergy were met they protested against the Form of the Summons because cited ad